The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-12-06
VIRGINIA IN THE RIGHT.
IMPRISONMENT OF HER OFFICERS
ILLEGAL.

WASHINGTON, Dec 5.--When the United
States Supreme Court reasscmbled at noon
to-day it was evident from the large attend
ance of spectators and Of members of the
bar, that important decisions were antici-
pated, and the presence of all the counsel on
both sides in the Virginia habeas corpus
cases, as well as of the petitioners them
selves, indicated that among such decisions
would be the Judgment of the court upon
the latest phase Of the great Virginia debt
controversy. The first decisions read
were not of general public interest,
but when Justice Matthews said that he
was directed to announce the Judgment of
the court in the cases of Attorney General
Ayers and commonwealth attorneys Scott
and McCabe, of Virginia, upon writs of
habeaS corpus, every eye was bent upon
him and he was followed with the closest
attention throughout the reading of the
long and carefully prepared opinion, which
occupied more than an hour in delivery.
A SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE.
The facts of the case are well known and
the long statement with which Justice
Matthews prefaced the opinion of the court
may be summarized by saying that on June
6, 1887, James p Cooper and other holders
of tax-recevable coupons of Virginia bonds
began suit in the United States Circuit
Court for the Eastern district of Virginia
against Morton Marye, Auditor of the State
of Virginia, and other State officers for the
purpose of restraining them from bringing
suits in State courts for the collection
of State taxes in caSeT where
tenders had been made of receivable con
pons, and such tenders had been refused.
Upon the reading of the bill OF complaint,
Judge Bond, of the United States Circuit
Court, issued an order restraining the Aud
ltor, Attorney General and all the common
wealth's attorneys of the State from insti-
tuting such suits under such circumstances,
and from doing anything to carry into effect
the coupon crusher" act of the Legislature
of Virginia of May II, 1887 Attorney Gem
eral Ayers and the other petitioners disre-
garded this restraining order, and were
thereupon fined $500 and committed to
prison.
APPEALS TAKEN.
They thereupon brought their cases to
this court upon applications for writs of
habeas corpus, alleging that the United
States Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to
make such an order to entertain the suit in
which it was made, and that their imprison-
ment was without legal authority. After
stating the case at great length, and an
nouncing it as the settled policy of the court
to discharge upon writs Of habeas corpus
persons held for contempt in cases where the
lower court was without jurisdiction, jus
tice Matthews said:
The question presented is really whether the
Circuit Court had jurisdiction to entertain the
suit in which the order complained of was made
because the sole purpose and prayer of the bill
are by final decree perpetually to enjon the de-
PENDANTS from taking any steps in execution of
the act of May 12 1887 II the court had the
power upon the case made in the record to en-
tertain the suit for that purpose, it has equal
power as provisional remedy, to grant re-
straining order, violation of which consists of
the contempt adjudged against the petitioners.
THE PRINCIPAL POINT.
The principal contention on the part of the
petitioners is that the suit nominally against
them, is in fact and in law suit against the
State of Virginia, whose officers they are, juris
diction to entertain which is denied by the
eleventh amendment to the constitution. 1t
must be regarded as the settled doctrine of this
court, established by its recent decisions, that
the question whether suit is within the pro-
hibition of the eleventh amendment is not al
ways to be determined by refereuce to the NOM
inal parties on record.
Justice Matthews then renews carefully
and in detail the decisions of the courts in
cases relied upon by the counsel for the
bondholders TO show that the suit is not
within the prohibition of the eleventh
amendment, and shows in what respect
such cases differ from the cases of the petit
tioners. Resuming, he says:
1t is, therefore, not conclusive Of the principal
question in this case that the State of Virginia
is not named as the party defendant Whether
it is an actual party in the sense of the prohibit
tion of the constitution must be determined by
consideration of the nature Of the case as pre-
sented on the whole record.
THE MAIN AvERMENTs.
The substantial avernents of the bill are:
First that the compliments were owners of
G100 000 worth of the roCeiVaba commons of
Virginia, for which they had paid over $50, 900;
second, that they have sold $4,000 of that
amount for $4,000, or more, to taxpayers of
Virginia, who have rendered the same to the
proper State officials in payment OF their taxes,
but that said officers have refused TO receive the
same; third, that if the officers of the State are
permitted to enforce the act of May IL, 1887 the
complainants will be unable to sell the remaining
$50 900 of their coupons to the taxpayers Of that
State at any price and thus their entire prop
erty in the same will be destroyed; fourth, that
the act OF May l2, 1887, is unconstitutional and
void, because it impairs obligation of the con-
tract Of the State of Virginia, by which it
agreed to receive coupons cut from its bonds in
payment of debts, demands and taxes due to IT,
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
The particulars in which this contract is
alleged to be violated by the provisions of that
act are: First, that in disregard OF tenders of
tax-receiva lie coupons made by taxpayers in
payment Of taxes, the act of the General AS
sernbly peremptoriIy requires action at law to
be brought in the name of the State of Virginia
against all such taxpayers as are de-
Ingient; second, because in the trial Of such
actions it is required that the defendant shall
not only prove the fact OF the tender, but the
genuness of the coupons rendered; third, that
as part of that proof he is required to produce
the bond itself from which such coupons are said
to have been cut; and, fourth, that be is not per-
mitted to introduce expert testimony 10 prove
the genuineness OF the coupons. The prayer OF
the bill is that the Attorney General OF Virginia
and the commemorative attorneys for the coun-
ties of the State be restrained by Injunction
from commencing and prosecuting any suits
under the acts Of May IL, 1887 for the recovery
of taxes against parties alleged to be delinquent
but who In fact have rendered tax-receivabie
coupons in payment OF taxes due.
WHAT THEY SEEK TO RESTRAIN.
It is TO be observed that the only personal act
on the part Of the petitioners sought to be re
strained by the original order Of June 8, 1887, is
act of May ~. 1887, against any
person who had rendered tag-receivable coupons
In payment of taxes due TO the State or Virginia.
ANY such suit must by the statute be brought
in The name Of the STATE and for its use. 1t is
immateria In our opinion 10 consider matters
which are alleged In respect to the
cause and conduct OF such suit after
its institution by reason Of provisions
contained I'm other acts of the General Assembly
restricting the mode of proof of the genuine
ness Of the coupons. IL suit may be rightfully
brought by the State TO recover judgment for
taxes in such case certainly there Is nothing
In these provisions that violates any legal or
contract right Of the parties sued. II he de-
tends the action on the ground of the lawful
tender Of payment he must, Of course. plead